After spending the last week on stand-by to see if my team would be activated, I am finally free to go hit the rivers. I am just a little curious how people here feel about these "peaceful" protesters.

I was very involved in one last year when we arrested 23. I wish I was free to tell you about all the BS we had to put with from them during that. I am a former greeener myself, so please refrain from gross stereotyping please.

Here's my take-

Most of the protesters were college age, although the leader (Evergreen College professor) never placed himself in the line of fire.....

Some of the older ones brought their children into an unsafe place at least one of the days and should have been arrested for child endangerment.

They were all quickly booked and arrested although after what happened (or didn't happen) last time they will probably face no consquences as they should for their property destruction, rock throwing, and defacing of public property. Not to mention their tying up of expensive taxpayer resources.

They neither stopped the shipments or changed anything about the war.

They are mostly a bunch of whining, idealistic, brainwashed idealogues that have no clue about what is really going on in Iraq.

If you want to see for yourself, check out "The Olympian" newspaper website.




http://www.theolympian.com/

I am a liberal, and someone who feels strongly that the Iraqi war was ill advised, ill conceived, and total BS. I also feel just as strongly that acting like a doped up jackass doesn't help win peoples hearts and minds. It turns the average citizen away from the message.

If I was staging a war protest in Olympia, I'd foregone the whole civilian unrest thing. I think a better angle would have been a welcome home celebration, with a theme of "Welcome Home, We Wish You Had Never Left".

And for the average American who doesn't believe we should have gone into Iraq to begin with, I think that sentiment captures how they feel. Same reason I can't watch more than 10 minutes of Baghdad ER; because the pain and suffering were totally preventable. Because those soldiers should have been "home", and safe until that time that we really did need them.

It's Fall, and a bit nippy outside. How come the cops didn't just water those protestors down? I bet 40 degree water would have been as effective as pepper spray.

Goinfishin,
And one other thing, I might have Friday to bank fish if you want to come along with Jake and I.

[censored] [censored] [censored] [censored] sumbitch [censored]

+1

LOL!!! Whoops ,wrong thread. More trees,less BUSH

I would love to have a water cannon to gently spray a cold mist on the little trustfundarians...lol

I agree with much of your sentiment Vince. My brother is over there now and while the situation in country is very complex, he feels that our presence there has kept the islamofacists from taking over and the average Iraqi is terrified of our troops leaving.

We shouldn't have gone there in the first place. I think that when Saddam traded oil to China, Russia and France, in defiance of the sanctions, he had no interest in providing any help for his people. Diplomatic pressure on those countries would have been better. Saddam was contained and had yet to become a rallying point for radical islam. There are alot of countries that abuse human rights.

I am just a little pissed at having been on the front lines last year, bearing the brunt of protesters abuse and not receiving the support of the judicial system. We were defending the port property from their aggression and they came to us. A peacefull protest would have been great, but they decided to crank it up. I am not going to whine about us getting sprayed with noxious liquids from supersoakers, rocks and debris being hurled, a 30 foot panel gate ripped out of my hands...etc....oh well, it's what the people pay me to do and I won't complain.

This is because I know they do not represent the community as a whole.

Vince,
Thanks for the invite. Any day but Friday would be great. I promised the wife I would spend at least one day with her before she is a fish widow. I will call you if that changes.

Vince, you are right on!

I agree with that Vince.



It's called attention seeking behavior. Probably more of an Evergreen tradition or fad than anything.

My take on the Oly police is that they are patient and accustomed to a certain amount of this stuff. I think dumb kids with no common sense (who challenge the 5-0 and get pepper sprayed for not doing what they are asked), have gotten what they deserved. There are consequences for breaking the law. The police have more serious matters to deal with instead of babysitting a bunch of spoiled brats.

1) The professor/ringleaders are doing the same thing that they are protesting against and has caused all the problems humanity has ever faced--Old, well fed, comfortable men convincing young, starry-eyed idealists into the trenches to fight their fights for them with the young's only reward being bragging rights and maybe a shiny commemorative pin to show for it.

2)Radicals suck no matter what banner they are under.

3)Not one of those losers I've ever seen around Olympia, which leads me to assume they are just Dipsh.its up from Portland & Eugene here to try and have a mini WTO they can tell thier friends about.

4)Vince hit the nail on the head.

Vince----

wimpy skinny dudes and ugly chicks all hoping to get laid after the fact?
i read that somewhere but it reads true for evergreen kids protesting the green speghetti
or? atleast it did 3 decades ago
i see some things don't change

.

". . . the right of the people to peaceably assemble . . . for a redress of grievances . . ." or words to that effect. I believe in it. I've done it. I would do it again.

I didn't join this protest, not because I was busy working for a living, but because I think protesting returning military equipment is misguided at best, likely foolish no matter how you cut it. There are more significant actions to protest and more effective venues. But the port is handy to locals who may have been more in search of easy and convenient opportunity, rather than meaningful and effective, but more difficult action.

Like BWP, I can tolerate the inconvenience, and the public expense (which is less than small change compared to what's being pissed away on the war). I'm old enough now to understand that college age kids are still kids, and most lack the analytical skill to really get their protest sh!t together, and are led and easily manipulated by teachers they respect. What I have a lot less tolerance for are the older, should be wiser, teachers who should definitely have their protest sh!t together, who opt for such a cheap shot as organizing and leading a protest against returning military equipment to the port. This makes it altogether clear to me that it's far too easy to obtain a PhD from some institutions of higher learning, and the public isn't getting it's money's worth from at least one Evergreen prof.

Sg

i don't support this war, and have no problems with peaceful protests, but these morons crossed the line and got what they deserved. throwing rocks at cops, blocking traffic, and bringing impressionable little kids along with just makes you a jackass.

Well I guess I will put my 2 cents in. Coming from the perspective of the conservative point of view. Feel free to voice your freedom of speech afterwards as you prolly will.

Anti-war protestors have the God given right to say anything they want to and do anything they want to as long as they aren't breaking the law. People need to respect the opinions of others and be able to deal with it. Not everyone is going to agree with what they say or do. From what I gathered from the news there was just a small group of people that were causing the problem and they were dealt with. They got what they asked for and some of them got away with felonies. Some of them got away without being bothered by child protective services - which should have been there to intervene, but didn't when stupid parent put their children in harms way.

I know alot of you guys on this board are liberal, which is fine. I respect your opinions. Coming from the other side of the coin I feel the war was right and justified. MY opinion comes based on the fact that we live in a world where modern technology has given people the ability to kill whom have wanted to hurt us and anyone whom doesn't believe in their religion should die. They have been lingering there for thousands of years waiting to force their religion upon us and to kill those who don't believe.

I have a good Iraqi friend who left Baghdad and was sent to southeast Asia. He was part of the elite Iraqi guard before the first gulf war. He is a scientist and doctor by profession no longer practicing but working in the automotive business and living here in the United States. He had a very large family in Iraq when he left. They are no longer alive. The reason he was sent to southest Asia was part of Saddam's Jihad to develope biological weapons to poison crops and fields that would be exported to the United States for consumption such as rice. After he refused to do so and sought refuge and came to the United States his entire family and extended family - hundreds of people were executed. Some of the people in his family were Kurds in northern Iraq that survied being gased by their own country in the late 80's. Again that was before the first Gulf war. Saddam's plans according to him were on a much grander scale for the future. He was planning to take over the middle-east, put a choke hold on the United States and it's Allies by cutting oil supply making them beg for mercy and accept islam because he knew politics and environmentalist in the United States would keep us from refining oil rich sections of the United States such as Anwar and making more oil refineries which we haven't done in 25+ years. If accepting Islam after a huge gasoline crisis wasn't the answer, he had planned on using his neighboring country's nuclear weapons to remove those that don't.

After coming here to the United States and seeing all the wonderful things our country had to offer him that he had heard about you couldn't find a more patriotic person as him. He is now a citizen and teaches people to find peace in Islam here.

Now all you liberals are going to argue there was never any chemical weapons they found which is fine, they never did. But that still doesn't erase the fact they did have A LOT and used them against their own people and Iran prior to the wars. IT still doesn't erase the fact that Iraq had the Osiraq reactor that they tried to purchase and did purchase equipment from France to process that material into weapons grade which thankfully Isreal took care of by bombing it and later the United States by destroying it during the gulf wars. IT still doesn't erase the fact that Saddam had much larger plans and he would have followed through on them by now if our coalition didn't prevent them. Now I know you all you liberals are going to argue the reasons for which lead up to our last invasion were bogus and lies. Intelligence whether it was good or when it actually turned out bad from our country and many other countrys intelligence communities is either here nor there and doesn't erase the fact Saddam violated a decades plus worth of sanctions - The real true reason why we went there. Everyone has forgotten because of our leftist media and its controlling interest groups pushing the George Soros type mentality has warped reality of the matter blaming it solely upon The Bush Administration for lack thereof finding WMDs. Well atleast half of our country has forgotten.

No one likes war. But when it comes to preserving and protecting our freedom, it's justifiable.

Has everyone forgotten the lessons of 911? The lesson will be re-educated to the non-believers when we drop our guard. Thank god we have many upon thousands of people protecting us, monitoring, watching and preventing things like that from going on.

Just my 2 cents.

Hey Meester Blue Jay. I have one thing to say to you.

BOOM!

Blue Jay, to say that I disagree is an understatement. However, you know the arguements on my side, I won't bore anybody with that.

When did Ahmed Chalabi get into the automotive business? Careful not to take any personal checks from that guy. And make sure you don't pay him until after he's fixed your chevy.

911 didn't have anything to do with Saddam. Bill and Hillary were beating the war drums long before 911 ever happened. Bill had 9 to 10 chances to take out OBL and messed those up himself. Hillary didn't have to believe what Bush said prior to the vote to go to war, she made her own determination based on the same intelligence Bush had as so did congress. She said it herself. You've got to remember opportunist are given some sort of pass in this country to change their minds at any given momment so long as it suits their political purpose.

You're right about not everyone agreeing with the war, they're not always liberals. I don't think half the population of this country is Republican that agrees with it as well. Well maybe something like 30 odd percent consider themselves conservative or Republican according to 2004 election stats. You'd think by now if the majority of the country thought it was wrong they would have made congress do something about it. The same do nothing congress were talking about with single digit approval. Of course the President himself with a stellar upper 20 low to high 30 depending on the breeze looks like a phenom compared to those clowns.

As for the protestors I'm sure they had plenty of time to think about what they were going to do on the drive from Federal Way to Tacoma.

Come on Blue Jay, give me another bedtime story. Tell me again about how Saddam was going to take over the Middle East, or tell me about the increased freedom I have now that Bush is president. My other favorite bed time story is how we went to war because of violations of UN sanctions. That one puts me right to sleep.

But not the same way the citizens of Darfur sleep. Or the way the misidentified "John Doe Muhammed's" sleep, locked away in secret gulag's without benefit of trial. Or the way the Bill of Rights sleeps now that we have Dubya protecting us. We can all sleep well, after all his intentions are good.

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." Daniel Webster

" But not the same way the citizens of Darfur sleep. Or the way the misidentified "John Doe Muhammed's" sleep, locked away in secret gulag's without benefit of trial. Or the way the Bill of Rights sleeps now that we have Dubya protecting us. We can all sleep well, after all his intentions are good."

As I've said before, we were wrong to invade Iraq before trying to work with sanctions and diplomacy. At least we could have come into the country and cleaned house (with the full UN support) when he actually had his WMD programs up and running so we didn't look like complete imperialist jackasses.

As far as our being at fault for the mess in Sudan, this is not primarily our problem. the only difference between that country and all the other brutal regimes engaging in warfare in Africa, as we all know, is oil of course. Let Europe settle it.

Some people would like to believe that the Imperialist US is the root of all evil. Lets work on getting this regime out of office and get a moderate in there, I dont care from which party at this point.

Does anyone think we should provide military intervention in Sudan? That's the last thing we need. So far all we have done is supply non-weapons equipment to the side we like and 300 million in humanitarian aid. You know that place has a bunch of oil (which still makes the wheels go round and round)

I agree that prisoners detained by the US should get trials and a chance to prove they are not terrorists.

Since I'm one of those guys that deals with the rights of citizens on a daily basis.. rest assured that unless you are a terrorist and the feds are looking for you, you are safe in this state. Our BAR associaton likes to brag that this state offers everyone protection against guys like me.

Finally, I am very lucky in that I know many people who have served/worked in Iraq. I am also lucky that my work has sent me to a lot of training in this area, to include seminars led by international experts.


Here is a run down on one I went to hosted by CNN (not exactly a right wing news group)

1) The US should get out of Iraq soon and let the Iraqis control it however they need to and quit whining about being too rough. And, start a meaningful dialogue with Arab countries.

2) Part of that is to withdraw direct support from Israel, this is pissing off everyone there, The Israelis can take care of themselves. Although it should be noted that we have been a moderating influence on their harsher policies towards their Arab neighbors.

3) Quit running around the world trying to control everything. Just work on trade and good stuff. Except we might have to wack a few dictators here and there who threaten that.

There, from someone who is definitely less than a genius, and knows there is a lot more to these issues that we will ever be aware of, is something that one doesn't hear very often from either side. A solution.

I think it's great that more Americans think globally. I remember a very drunk Irish woman I talked to once during a domestic. In a brief moment of lucidity, she looked right at me and said "you Americans are so full o' yerselfs."

She was right, I think.


I am an independent.

I wonder why Dumbya didn't think of that.

I still say we should hand Iraq back to Turkey with a big apology for our British Friend's actions back in 1918.

The Turks know how to handle sectarian fundamentalist nutjobs to protect and secure a secular state.




The USA? We elect ours to public office:

Blue Jay,

Your post should be in the LOL thread where it would be a perfect fit. I understood you were conservative, but I didn't know you were a certified right wing neocon whackjob. Or do you just write like one? If so, good work.

Sg

GoingFishin,




It is a notable inconsistency in the right wing argument that we went into Iraq to remove a brutal dictator, but we do so very little to stop a genocidal regime in Sudan. That is why I pointed it out. There is a strong fact based rebuttal for every excuse given for why we went into Iraq.

Whether we should go into Sudan is immaterial at this point. We don't have the resources to continue with the obligations we already have.


Blue Jay, I'm ready for another fairy tale. Tell me again how Saddam was going to force Islam on America by choking our oil supply. Is there an ogre named Shrek in that one? Leave the lights on when you tell it, it's really really scary.

The political view that Blue Jay presents here is IMO, undenyable proof of the power of right-wing talk radio to cloud the sensibilities of an otherwise moderately intelligent, reasonable individual. Assuming of course that the individual is pre-disposed to posessing the 3 core values of modern conservatism, fear, hatred and intolerance... which it would appear that Blue Jay indeed does... in abundance.

Hell... just go down the list of points he's tryin' to make... it reads like a page outta the Limbaugh letter or the official RNC talking points bulletin!

It's weird too? For a guy that does so much laughing out loud?

That Koolaid is some good [censored]....LOL????

I hear what you're seein' dude. I'm lol'ing on the outside and col'ing (crying out loud) on the inside.

Its not my fault your side trys to minimize serious violations of International law and squander it away by munipulating the reality of the situation via the Clinton News Network and MSLSD. The media has always been a great source of the ol' smoke and mirrors show. I'm thinking you also would sleep right through Iran using a nuclear weapon on Isreal. Yeah those gas prices at the pump at $6/gal would put you right to sleep. Oh you must row to work right living down near the skok. my bad.

I wonder how many other countrys around the world have used secret prisons that give their prisoners of war the same rights as their citizens....hmmmm lol

ahhhh yesss, getting very beddy sleepy now...naptime....yawnnn!

IF that were the case then 50% of this country must listen to talk radio and let radio develope, shape and mold them into right wing zombie huh? While the other half watch Katie Couric and Keith Olbermann but thats far from reality. Katie Couric will be lucky she ends up on the home shopping network next time. What is it about the left that thinks the right is all about fear, hatred and intolerance. Intolerance to raising taxes, Fear another Clinton might let another 911 happen maybe. But hatred I just don't get.

I can LOL anytime I want to. I take politics with a grain of sand. But I love to argue with the leftards.

Hurt me baby!

No just a reference to flooding. I'd fish in my front yard too if I could.

Let's hear your take on fiscal conservatism and how it relates to the republican party these days. Seriously..

Boot_jay has been eating mushrooms from his bathroom floor again. LOL

I didn't say I agree with everything they do.

Nothing like a green king for an avatar!

Right back atcha....later! lol

I like them river perch! They are fun no matter what color they are as long as they take down a shrimp tipped jig under a float.

Because they fight good and there's a place about 2 miles from my house I can catch them with the possibility of also catching a chrome silver or two.

Safeway?

MSLSD...I think I took some of that once.

Oh yeah and Boot_Jay is some funny chit

Yeah no kidding!

How is the GOP fiscally conservative at all? Unless you mean dumping out the treasury into the arms of American War Profiteers?

We should just let someone F us up, then Japan could come in and rebuild.

When did/do we ever associate fiscally responsible or conservative with any political party?

Who really gives a flying f*%k what kind of fish someone fishes for?

I guess I don't get where the "my fish is cooler than your fish attitude" comes from. Unless he came on here boasting about his wonderful avatar and they're the greatest fish on earth but it's just a damn fish. Coho are awesome, steelhead wonderful, chum.. well, to each his own.

I enjoy catching all types of fish. Some more then other's. Some people have a hang up with targeting chum and they think they are above the rest.

BJ,

It's OK for you to target chum. You just get demerits for each one hooked and 5 for each one actually landed on purpose. You can shed some of the demerits if it was a really special lure you wanted to get back, but that's at the discretion of the judges. But your goofy spiel about Saddam converting the west to Islam pretty much turns the discretion meter off. Sorry, cuz if you were a bright conservative, you wouldn't spout crap like that. That's sad. Conservatism has many admirable attributes; scraping the gutter like you have suggests you're really only entertainment.

Sg

You're right its okay to catch Chum. I landed about 8 so in the last couple days...what's that -40 points your honor? BTW I don't consider myself to be a bright shiney conservative like you think I am. I argue for the sake of entertainment, you got that straight lol. On a side note, radical islam doesn't exist and twin towers were hit by missles like Rosie O'donnell said huh?

BJ-

The point is that Sadddam (and his playboy sons) were no fans of Islamists, and the Islamists were no fans of him. It's why Donald Rumsfield (during the Reagan years) was comfortable supporting Saddam while he gassed the Iranians and the Kurds.

"On a side note, radical islam doesn't exist and twin towers were hit by missles like Rosie O'donnell said huh? "

Blue Jay, do you cut plug your red herring?

Since blue jay seems to be the only conservative arguing here and comes across as an idiot, I feel I must jump in. The truth is, we did have the right to go into Iraq if we wanted to. Sadaam was making a joke out of the sanctions and was taking pot shots at us as we patroled the no-fly zone. In my opinion, though, the reason we went was because Israelwas getting pissed off about all the suicide bombers and the fact that Sadaam was paying off their families. Think how mad we were about 911. If you look at the numbers, the percentages of Israelies affected by suicide bombers is much higher then Americans affected by 911. The numbers would indicated that most people would personally know of someone affected by a bomber.
There is no way that the US wants Israel to do anything in the Middle East. While it might be nice to say let them fight their own battles, the truth is if they do it is likely the whole middle east could go up in flames. There is no way Israel is going to lose a war without putting up a couple of nukes at some point. From an oil dependency side we could never allow this. When there were problems in Lebanon with Hezbollah last year, Israel kept coming out with statements like, unless something changes, we are going to do something. The statements kept getting stronger. I think these statements were towards Bush, but the political pressures here kept him from doing anything. Luckly the problem got solved before Israel did something.
Bush, agian this is my opinion, felt he had to come up with a different reason for attacking Iraq then defending Israel, as this reason would upset the rest of the middle east and possible cause a widescale involvement of other countries. At best it probably would mean the end of relatively good relations with the Saudi's and probably a disruption of oil to the US. If Bush had half a brain he would have planned a good reason for going into Iraq. At best he could have planted something for us to find when we got there. The whole scenario has left us looking like idiots.

In the end, we are probably going to be there for years to come. The only real solution is to split the country. Unfortunately this would leave one side in control of the oil reserves and expecting them to honor any agreement to share the wealth is a joke. The people of Iraq will never love each other and get along. That's why a person like Sadaam is the only type of leader that will ever suceed. The only hope we have of keeping peace is to separate the sides into separate sides with a central government that is kept in check by us. Hopefully we won't allow big US interests to control the wealth, but will actually allow the wealth to trickle down to the masses. I would guess the young masses would much rather sit at home and play nintendo then kill themselves or each other. It is the same everywhere though; take away hope and people will have no regard for their own future. Even in the US it is evident. During the great economy of the clinton years we saw a drop in gang violence, teen drug use and teen pregnancy. The last couple of years, as the economy has soured some, we have seen a new surge in gang violence.

In short, we had to go, we have to stay. The way we accomplish this and express it really needs to change though. Bush's way is idiotic and has caused us problems and lack of respect. Bush is not a true conservative. Rather he is a big business moderate. This mortgage fiasco is just a perfect example of executives taking huge short term gains at the expense of their stockholders. Watch now as they figure out a way to get the government to bail out the banks to their advantage. Way off topic, but my point would be that you can probably expect the same if you elect any of the mainstream candidates, from either side.

Agreed.




Not agreed.

What "right" would that be? One secured by the UN? The same body that would never have sanctioned an invasion of Baghdad? Or was it some made up "right"? Bush likes to make up new executive powers and rights that never previously existed. The US Supreme Court, the same one that sullied itself by deciding a presidential election, has also slapped down the Presidents attempts to create new powers that the Founding Fathers never intended.

Krijack, the reason BJ sounds like an idiot is because he's an apologist for an idiot president.

Krijack, I remember well (I know, its a curse) that GW said that we would not go into Iraq without the blessing of the UN. After all, he (and you) placed great stock in Sadaam's flaunting of the UN sanctions. When it became clear that the UN would not go along with GW, it was another forgetten requirement of our invasion of Iraq.

Please, if you are trying to take up the mantle of a thinking conservative, get your facts somewhat right. Otherwise, it is just straight old propoganda.

I've said before I don't agree with everything conservative. I will also state I don't agree with everything the President does including his out of control spending. It's not my fault either you still feel the 2000 & 04' elections were stolen from you lol.

It's all a conspiracy and their out to get you! They are in your computer stealing your megahurtz and hiding in your phone! The sad thing is, you probably feel that's true. BTW they can power up the mic on your phone without a battery and listen in. LOL.

What's not a conspiracy is Gregoire winning by 128 votes after losing 2 out of 3 counts in a major election. And what's not a conspiracy is the fact that the WA state Supreme Court wrapped that one up and handed it to her on a silver platter. Of course they proabably felt making sure they counted all those dead people ballots, write in's and people voting by mail in then going to write one in another precinct may be way more important then disenfranchising 5,000 or so overseas military ballots that got held in customs. Maybe in 08's she will make sure all of WA State brigades are overseas again.

Aa big 'Amen!' and a 'No Sh#t!' To that!!

I'm getting sick of the same of regurgitated tripe showing up from Dittoheads. It all comes from The News Corporation* and The Clear Channel which combined make up The largest percentage** of everything that is seen or heard on American Airwaves, Television, Print, Film, and Satellite and even Concert Tours.*** You remind me of this dumbf#ck I used to work with that hung on every word of the boss like it was the Gospel and couldn't even take a crap on his own without asking if he needed to first.

If you can't form a thought of your own for once, turn off you computer, walk outside and blow your brains out, because fer f#cksake, you aren't using them anyway.




*The term 'News' is used in an abstract sense in Fox's case. The Weekly World News also used the word 'News' in it's title and both companies are about equal in their honesty.

**Do some snooping on The Clear Channel and The News Corporation's corporate holdings and assets. The majority of their growth and aquisitions came after Bush's 2000 appointment of Michael Powell as head of the FCC, who later resigned after the attention drawn to his appointment following the Great Superbowl Nipple Scare.

***You might be shocked out to find that your favorite 'rebellious' rockstar you admired so much as a teen is simply a commercial marionnette controlled by the same puppetmaster as Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge. Redneck loudmouth Toby Keith is an obvious one, but also Led Zeppelin and The Ramones surprised me.

Eddie,
Are you trying to say that he wasn't illegally shipping oil or shooting at our planes?
I won't take a position on the sanctions, or even the first gulf war as there are questions about the postering that went on before hand. But, there is no doubt that we had a signed agreement at the end of it and he was not following it. It can be argued that part of the reason we couldn't get other countries to agree to us going that they were prospering too much under the existing sanctions. It appears that Sadaam was. At the same time most of the UN was probably secretly jumping with joy everytime another bomb went off in Israel.

If someone takes a pot shot at me, I don't really care that they missed. I am going to shoot back. If we had faked a downed plane after 911 most of the world would have looked at the whole thing differently. Yeah, Bush said he would wait for the UN, thats' one of the reasons I think he is an idiot. As I state previously, I think we went in because of Israel, so what I am talking about is a better validation. No one wants to comment on this aspect, but rather just beat up on Bush and the conservatives. Remember, congress voted to go and Hilary won't promise to withdraw. Maybe, they know something but are afraid to present it to the American people. Maybe, they are just beholden to the same big business pressures that Bush is. In any case, it doesn't appear to be changing anytime soon.

If you wonder about the validation issues, look at how little is being said about Afghanistan. One could easily argue that the threat is gone and that we should leave. Bush has already said it is not about catching Bin Ladin anymore. Since they started the mess, why should we stay to clean it up?
I am not trying to take a postition here, just pointing out that it isn't happening (at least not on the scale of Iraq).

In the end, I feel we probably had to go or felt we had to go into Iraq, and were looking for a reason. How big business may have profitted from it is another story. The two issues should not be looked at as the same. I say this because I think leaving or not doing anything is not an option at this time. Rather, we should be doing our best to set up a system that profits the people of that country. I am not sure that is happening.

Blue Jay,

One big difference between the 2000 election/US Supreme Court and the 2004 election/WA State Supreme Court is that the WA State Supreme Court allowed votes to be counted, while the net effect of the US Supreme Court decision was to stop counting.

The US Customs Service (a Federal agency) is involved in the plot?

Puhleeze.

Krijack, you use the term we to imply that the US had imposed the sanctions. You know that is not the case. Gulf War I was a war sanctioned by the UN. They called the shots on that one and the sanctions in question were placed by them.

I also believe that a precipitous withdrawl from Iraq is not in the US' best interest. However, that does not mean that I ever supported our going in the first place. I will always remember the duplicity and wrong headed logic that got so many people killed.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/15/24/5423/

Published on Saturday, November 24, 2007 by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
At the White House, Truth is a Casualty
by Tony Norman
At the risk of taking a Bob Dylan lyric completely out of context, the amphetamine-fueled singer articulated the perfect line about modern presidents’ relationship to truth back in 1965 when he sneered: “Obscenity, who really cares / propaganda, all is phony.”

All is phony, indeed. As usual, phoniness begins at the top. In an excerpt from “What Happened,” a tell-all that won’t be published until April 2008, former White House press secretary Scott McClellan admitted that he may have been President Bush’s accidental propagandist during his undistinguished stint in Washington’s version of the Augean stables:

“The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

“So I stood at the White House briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.

“There was one problem. It was not true. I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president’s chief of staff and the president himself.”

Since posting the excerpt on its Web site, the book’s publisher, PublicAffairs, has already begun its unseemly ritual backpedaling: Of course Mr. McClellan wasn’t saying that he was personally misled by Mr. Bush, no matter what the excerpt indicates. Sure, the language is blunt and declarative, but that’s books by former White House press secretaries for you. Blah, blah, blah!

When the president’s surrogates finish sliming Mr. McClellan for explaining the slippery nature of truth in the Bush White House, the actual text of “What Happened” will probably be drained of its most controversial elements when it finally hits the book skids at Wal-Mart in the spring.

“The president has not and would not ask his spokespeople to pass false information,” said White House press secretary Dana Perino. She said it was difficult for the White House to react to the book excerpt because it wasn’t clear what the passage meant without the context of the entire book.

Who knew that assessing an unflattering comment by a former administration insider required a background in semiotics and linguistic philosophy?

Assuming this story hasn’t completely disappeared by the middle of next week, Ms. Perino will probably begin insinuating that her predecessor either misunderstood his job or has willfully misrepresented — in exchange for a large book advance — the role his former superiors played in the leak of former CIA officer Valerie Plame’s name.

So far, only lefty-oriented blogs and Keith Olbermann, the Don Quixote of broadcast journalism, are making a big deal about the teaser from the book. The mainstream media is either bored by the thought of another plunge into l’affaire Plame or numb at the prospect of cataloguing yet another series of lies by an administration that would get and deserve banner headlines if it ever bothered to tell the truth about anything.

When Mr. McClellan announced last year that he was leaving the administration, Mr. Bush rolled out his corniest bromides for his departing Texas crony whose sweaty forehead had been telegraphing the opposite of what had been coming out of his mouth for years:

“I don’t know whether or not the press corps realizes this, but his is a challenging assignment dealing with you all on a regular basis,” Mr. Bush said, laying it on thick about a guy whose conscience had obviously begun to get to him. The press snickered at being insulted by the commander in chief yet again. “And I thought he handled his assignment with class, integrity. He really represents the best of his family, our state and our country. It’s going to be hard to replace Scott. But, nevertheless, he’s made the decision and I accept it.”

If Scott McClellan and his publisher intended only to indict the White House chain of command, but not the president himself, the best Mr. Bush could expect would be to look out of touch. The publisher chose the most inflammatory excerpt possible to attract media attention. Claiming that Mr. McClellan’s intention is being distorted is a little disingenuous.

When his successor Tony Snow finally writes his own account of his White House years, it will be a guaranteed blockbuster with or without unflattering verdicts about the president. Mr. Snow’s witty stonewalling was an awesome thing to behold.

But we all know that Mr. Snow, a former Fox News talking head, isn’t so blinded by loyalty to his former boss that he would be tentative about criticizing him if he felt compelled to do so. Let me be as bold as to suggest a possible title for a Mr. Snow tell-all: “I Can’t Believe I Actually Took Orders from that Guy.”

Tony Norman can be reached at tnorman@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1631.

Are you crazy? lol It's a known FACT the US dept of Justice threatened to sue WA State for not mailing out overseas ballots to it's military members. WA Supreme Court a.k.a Gregoires buddies - Some may recall she was our states former head attorney that dealt with them on a daily basis.

Oh well Rossi will be our gov. in 08' so it's water under the bridge.

Do you always change the subject when you've painted yourself into a corner?

Once again, do you like to cut plug your red herring? There is no need for conspiracy when the facts about Bush's presidency are laying out in the open for people to smell.

I'm not worried about who's blowing him. I'm not worried about him or his staff stealing the presidential china. Office sex, and petty theft is of no importance when viewed in the context of 3,500 dead American soldiers, 25,000 wounded. And anyone who did not take the time to analyze the fictional rationale given to why we went to war is partially responsible. And if you did analyze those facts, that turned out to be untrue, or worse, known falsehoods, then you should be really really angry.

Quit changing the subject. If you think we had every good reason to go to Iraq then say so. It has nothing to do with the Gov's race in Wash, or conspiracy theories about cell phones.

VHAwk

Blue Jay, I am not aware of any action taken by the Justice Dept. Please enlighten me.

Rush hasn't covered the topic in a long time eddie... so that's why blue_jay is havin' a hard time rememberin' what to think and say on the subject.

WOW you're sure witty. An action would have resulted in a suit, which btw never occured. Instead US Attorney for Western WA John McKay(D)coincidentally lost his job because he decided WA state officials had handled the invented "lost" votes for Gregoire properly.

Yeah Hannity hasn't covered it in a while too. Darn I will have to listen to Beck to Medved to see what they had to say on it.

Atleast I released the boot in my sig.

Don't give me the power of the people crap when it's a known fact that less then a third of registered voters showed for the midterms. Ok now take a winning percentage of 60% and you're still talking grasping at straws. More people cared about voting for American Idol. With a congressional approval rating in the single digits, all time lows EVAH for congress, that's a sad statement. lol

You can't honestly say there is no threat either. I thought only Ostriches burry their heads in the sand.

There are certain people, left and right, who like to argue even those points they know are wrong, merely for the fun of arguing. In this case it is not harmless fun. Repeated enough, lies become truth in the minds of the herd. People who engage in that kind of propaganda are like the brownshirts of the net. They are complicit in a small but real way, in the deaths of soldiers, and the destruction of our armed forces.

Good job Blue Jay. The Fuhrer thanks you.

If we were arguing about chum, it wouldn't be of any importance. The problem is, is that 20 million guys like him repeating the same BS over and over, made it politically possible for Bush to send hundreds of thousands of troops into harms way.

Their are consequences to free speech, as well as responsibilities. Forget the first, and ignore the second, and I'll be there to remind that person to think before they speak. Speaking in cliches only serves to enforce my belief that blue jay is more like a parrot.

"9-11!! USA!! FOUR MORE YEARS!!"
Don't nifty black uniforms they hired Hugo Boss to design look sharp?



http://youtube.com/watch?v=_qGAqA-muYU

You guys are way too funny. You are all so far hung up on hating Bush you've got your eyeballs appearing where your tonsils would normally be. Its shear comic relief because as I have stated, I don't agree with everything the man has done.

It's funny how the left try to belittle people from the right and sluff them off as some sort of brain washed nazi (which btw posting swastikas might offend some Jews that visit the board) whom all they do is post BS and lies. Then when the person they try to minimize doesn't bend, all the sudden the hurt and offended card gets played.

puhlease. If I wanted cry babies I would have registered at the democratic underground website.

Excellent video Irie. Spot on.


Blue Jay, saying you don't support everything Bush has done, does not change the fact you support all the materially important policies the President has pursued.






I agree that Bush had made up his mind about going in, but in order for him to execute his planned invasion he needed the support of the American public. Mouthpieces like Blue Jay helped turn the war from a potential nightmare, into a real one. Don't underestimate the power of simple internet chatter. That same chatter and gossip is repeated at home, at work, and at the bar.

A million guys spouting the same bull that BJ spouts makes an impact, especially when no one challenges the lies. A million whispers is the sound of thunder. And now because not enough people spoke out before the war, we live in a shitstorm.

The term 'facist' is overused, however with regard to the neocons who worship Bush, much as I believe BJ secretly does, it probably is an accurate description.



Taken from Wikipedia, following citations:

1 ^ Eatwell, Roger. 1996. Fascism: A History. New York: Allen Lane.
2 ^ Griffin, Roger. 1991. The Nature of Fascism. New York: St. Martin’s Press. On "populism, see p. 26: "Fascism is a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism".
3 ^ Nolte, Ernst The Three Faces Of Fascism: Action Française, Italian Fascism National Socialism, translated from the German by Leila Vennewitz, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1965.
4 ^ Paxton, Robert O. 2004. The Anatomy of Fascism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, ISBN 1-4000-4094-9
5 ^ Payne, Stanley G. 1995. A History of Fascism, 1914-45. Madison, Wisc.: University of Wisconsin Press ISBN 0-299-14874-2



Sounds like right wing political correctness to me. Considering that the context the picture was posted was to show opposition to militarism, populism, and blind nationalism. If I was Jewish I'd be more worried about people who supported a Nation-State using its resources to pursue wars of aggression.

Blue water,
Do you think it wise that we ask for UN approval for doing what is in our best interest. If you think that the UN holds our best interest at heart, you are sadly mistaken. I am not saying that they are always against us, just that they are not necessarily for us. If we were attacked by another country, would you wait for UN approval. Of course not. So when Sadaam was shooting at our planes, we should have taken the 911 sympathies and just did what we felt need to be done. All this, of course, hinges on my original thought, that, we went in because Israel was pissed off. I can't prove it, but it seems reasonable to me. Yeah Israel is is more pissed off at the palestinians, but that is a different story. They are pretty much powerless unless someone like sadaam starts giving them money and weapons. And, no, Israel did not threaten to use nukes, they don't need to. What I was saying was that If Israel decides to attack an enemy, the general fear is that others will get involved. Who is the real question. Lets say Israel attacks Iraq. Jihadists from all around start joining in, probably Syria and Jordan, perhaps the Saudis - and if nukes start falling, perhaps China or Russia. I have little doubt that if it does start getting out of hand, Israel will not restrain themselves at risk of losing their country. With Israel, there is no chance the enemy will rebuild your country. As Iran has said, the goal is complete annihalation. Israel can laugh at them because they know they hold the key to complete destruction in the region, not their enemies. As long as that is the case, they feel fairly safe. The second they do not, they take steps to remedy it, as they did recently in Syria. This is the reason we care so much about Iran getting nuclear weapons. Not because they will attack us, but because they will attack Israel, or just as likely, Israel themselves will put a stop to it. We, agian, are scared to death to let Israel do it because of the potention of escalating warfare. RIght or wrong does not matter. It is what it is. Israel is not going away without turning the desert to glass. As long as the US feels it needs oil from the region, we are not going to leave.
Vince, you keep talking about the lies but not ignore my arguement that we went in for other reasons. Perhaps you feel it is so ridiculous you don't have to even address it. If so, say so. I hope that our government intelligence never gets so transparent that the American people are able to know every detail about our foreign policy. Rather, I hope we can elect officals that we trust to decipher such information and take care of problems without putting us at risk. The fact that congress has voted for the war and has not yet removed Bush may be the indication that there is more to the story then we know.

Oh yeah, and as for sneaking in weapons,
1. I was talking about chemical weapons, which I believe he did have at one time, and may have buried, shipped away, or actually destroy. Most likely he did destroy them and then waffled on whether he did or didn't to provoke us and look tough. The next best thing to having a weapon is to have people think you have it.
2. If we really wanted to find nuclear weapons, we could have slipped in parts from the supposedly missing Russian supply.

Who knows, in the end I am using a lot of hypothesis to support the war. I realize this. I also realize I probably only know a tiny portion of the true story, whatever it may be. Hopefully a lot will become more apparant by the positions the next president takes. Now it is up to us to elect a president and congress that we trust. Unfortunately, since I don't particularly trust any of the candidates, that doesn't leave me much hope that anyone else will either.

We DID go in for reasons other than what the White House told us. The misrepresentation is the Big Lie. How can we, as a representative democracy, give consent to a war when we aren't given the basic facts?

The Downing Street Memo said it plainly, intelligence is being fitted to support a policy already in place.

The UN Charter allows for a country that has been attacked to defend itself. It does not require UN security counsel approval. O'Reilly tried playing that angle, it's a lie.

The UN Charter does NOT allow for a country to start a war in order to prevent a war. But the UN has no control over the US. We are the big dog. And only we, as an informed public, can police ourselves.

VHawk

AuntyM, I'm submitting your name to Barack to take over the CIA after he takes office.

Vinnie,
Do you think American's in general know enough to give consent? Would they have ever given consent in WWII if Japan hadn't attacked us? Not trying to compare the two, but I am trying to point out that politics is not and should not be a populist thing, that's why we are a republic, not a democracy. Would it make you feel better if we said we were going in because Israel was going to and we had to fight their wars. I am sure that would have went over real well. Truth is, if it was all about misrepresentations, then we should have been able to come up with something better. I guess Bush didn't have to. The Majority of American's were willing to do anything they were told after 911 and that is the biggest problem, because it won't go away just cause Bush does.

Irie,
My father lived through all that (Grandpa was SS). And while he hasn't compared Bush to Hilter, (he is getting old and isn't following politics the same) he has often compared how America's general tendency to follow is much like Germany's. After 911 I could see how he felt that way. The scariest thing I have heard is "well , if you aren't a terrorist you don't have to worry." I always ask conservatives if they would feel the same way about the Bush's policies if a democrat was in power. That always weems to get them a little upset.

My conspiracy theory is that the entire thing was just a grand Oceans 11 type of heist. Loot two countries at once....ours and theirs.

"well , if you aren't a terrorist you don't have to worry."

Along the lines of "mind if I search your vehicle? Why not if you have nothing to hide?" OR "mind if I check your urine, hair, blood, credit, etc?"

Americans are sheep.

I think Iran as a threat has been hyped just like Saddam/Iraq as a threat was hyped. All inferance with nothing proven.

Notice it was just announced they have a new missile capable of 1,200 miles but nobody can confirm if it's even been tested. At this point there doesn't have to be a real missile. It exists politically and will be used politically against us by our Admin.

If you want people to be sheep the number one way is to make them afraid of something.

Yup those were missles that hit the twin towers...yup, yup!

One of the things that makes the least amount of sense to me is why we didn't secure our borders after 911. They were and, still are, a freakin seive.

Hitting the Taliban had the entire world behind us. People for once after 911 happened started thinking beyond their next good meal, beer oor dope, orgasm, or good movie or whatever and started to realize a lot of folks in the world really hate us.

Instead we invade Iraq, an already contained threat. It was kind of funny how at first the threat from our armed forces quickly had Libya contrite and Iran seeking to appease us. Then, when they realized we were not going to accomplish the goal of transforming the country, they became completely emboldened.

I wonder what will happen there when we finally leave. Who will fill the power vacuum? As it stands now, Iran is a likely candidate, as is Turkey, and maybe even the Saudis. None of whom really want radical islam to take over. Even the Iranian Ayatollahs were starting to act moderate until we rejected their diplomatic peace gestures?!?!.

It is just now becoming known that Iran assisted us greatly in toppling the Taliban. But, as they say, they are a state which sponsors terrorism.

BTW, even the non-Fox news stations are reporting progress in Iraq. I wonder how they measure that? One less bomb a day? It's a damn bloody, nasty civil war we stirred up.

Here's the ethics question: Now that we have, do we owe the people there some chance at establishing order, or do we just get the hell out? As far as I'm concerned there is not a damn thing over there worth a f-ing pimple on an American's ass. Shiat, we can't even get gas under 3.20 a gallon for all that invading and taking over an oil rich country was worth. At least that would have made a wrong kind of sense.

I think Americans as a whole would have been much happier if they secured our borders. The short answer to why they don't secure the border is that politicians seem to think they will be able to snatch up 25 million more votes if those that came across already become legal all the sudden.

IF you want to get into ethics, one would value the lives of others. It's not their fault your gas cost $3.20 a gallon. Supply/demand and certain worldly events take care of that. But if you really want to dive in on that then ask your congressmen why they put special interests groups like the Sierra Club ahead of protecting the general interests of the People they supposedly protect, defend and serve. If they did that then Anwar, several other oil fields in the United States and more refineries would be an option to lower your prices...eventually. Instead were forced because of the left in this country to go overseas to defend our interests.

The real issue over in Iraq now is progress, which they've made a ton of. There is a lot more good going on then bad. The media is finally coming around to reporting what they can no longer deny.

I bet it does. Those type of people always hate having their cozy little cage rattled. Heck, if I was comfortably out to lunch, I'd get kinda irked too if someone stirred me from my stupor and made me pay attention to what's been going on.

It must be nice to be stupid.


Krijack--Interesting about your Grandpa. He ever say what branch of the SS he was in?

Ok I have more stuff to say then....lol

BJ, you missed my point apparently. is it ethical to start a civil war in a country and then abandon the people that want you there and pull out without trying to shovel a little manure first?

Thanks for educating me, I had no idea it was the damn Sierra Club to blame..lol I realize the Chinese love cars now as much as we do.

Anwar is a fragile wilderness environment. If you do the research you would see t hat Anwar oil would be a bandaid at best. Oil is running out. Let's not f the place up just to get a few more years out of it.

lol

Goingfishin,


We broke it, now we have some obligation to fix it. Unfortunately I don't think it'll get fixed while we are there, and the place unbalances without us; there is no winning solution to this problem. Partially why I didn't mind GW winning his first election in 2004, because then he'd be forced to chew the [censored]-stew he cooked up. If Kerry had won we'd be stuck with another 20 years of Republicans in Congress and the WH. The neo-cons would have twisted it to look like Kerry was at fault.

If I remember correctly, the R's controlled both houses of Congress, AND the White House. This mess is theirs. I say we send the WH, and all the guys and gals who voted to approve this fiasco over to Baghdad, Hillary included. And let them wear the same poorly designed helmets, and lightly armored humvees for the first couple of years. I like the idea...vote for war and you obligate yourself at least one tour in combat.

Bring home our troops.

I was a R forever. I voted my first time for Reagan when I was 18. I voted for B 1 and B 2
I do remember a debate with B2 and algore where Bush said he would do no Nation building. Didn't work out that way.
Maybe it's living on the left coast for 15 years or maybe it's the above, but I'm not a R anymore.
Ten years ago I could not even fathom the idea of "Clinton was a good President". My father and I recently had a good in depth conversation where we agreed that this was the case. If you knew my old man that comment would blow you away but there it is.
Ok gotta finish packing to ruin WK's river.

VHAWK, you are on point! Well said (once again).

And before we send the enablers and cheerleaders over to fight, can we get them to pay for it? I love anti-tax R's that have put a $20,000 tax bill on each American family.

Sierra Club? BJ, puh-lease. You and Rush should take a Viagra/Oxycontin cocktail, grab the chum from your avitar and numbly squirt all over each other as you blame Bill Clinton for something.

Hey BJ--

You know people argue that Anwar is such a fragile place, but the truth of the matter is the area they want to drill isn't much of an area - maybe the 3 west most miles of a small area. The area the US Geological surveyed a.k.a area 1002 is right up against the coast. And what's there isn't much to begin with. Today's drilling practices don't leave much of a impact. The drilling would be limited and wouldn't occur for very long. People have this huge misconception they want to drill all over Anwar which is not the truth. Prudhoe bay, just west of Anwar has produced 17% of what we use domestically here. The study of Anwar by the USGS estimates could provide up to 5% of US daily consumption for a limited time. But the overall point there is several places just like Anwar have been found in the US which are also protected.

But back to the Iraq thing. They are far from just leaving the place in a civil war. There is a lot more going on there that's not daily press. Good issues don't make the evening news, only death and destruction is what the media leftards want you to see. Nothing happens overnight.

Is that a Nissan or Toyota?

While people have the right to drive what and how they want. I agree something needs to be done for the future. IMO I believe hydrogen is the wave of the future.

What gives us that RIGHT??? Actually if you ask me it's a rat race. I drive because I have to ,I work because I have to I live simply and it isn't my right to do anything, That's how this country and our world in general got f'ed up in the first place. Our right,please dude,it's our right to rape our natural resources? I will say this,there is no stopping it,but I'll be damned if I be part of the problem. Fine you dislike Hilary. So do I. I dislike politicians,especially George W. Bush. So I will do my homework and vote for the lesser of the evils because our candidates are all full of [censored],as usual. The way we have been doing things is wrong,I'm sorry. get your head out of your ass. I may be idealistic but if something doesn't change soon we're all fucked. Look around you man. Our society is full of assholes,don't be one of them. You listen to too much Michael Savage I bet. yeah there is an enemy within,it's called our Government. What a joke,makes me want to just disappear. If I could I wouldn't have anything to do with any of it. What does this have to do with oil? Who gives a [censored] about oil ,that's what!!!





LOL

while agree'd on the fact that the candidates are full of it
i don't believe there is a "lesser" of the evils as they are different heads on the same monster
if ron paul makes it through i may vote for him or maybe kucinich
either way, if everyone keeps voting for the typical candidates it will be the same song and dance per usual

Ditto!

Point taken and I agree

i have to agree that kucinich comes off as a wack and if he was a bit more ? normal?, then he might have a better chance
my point was that folks that vote for candidates from the rep's or dem's are only endorsing the big business/big government mentality and influence that has this country in the shitter home and abroad
the lesser of two evils is a cop out and folks need to vote with their brain and their heart combined for any real change to occur as the two parties have taken the vote and decision away from the people and put it into selective portfolio's that are pimped by the various media's
i'd love to see even a 10% vote for the libertarian,green,commie,whatever type party just so these current big two realize that they need to remember whom they are supposed to be working for

2 cents

i know more people that would shoot hillary then vote for her for whatever thats worth
somehow i think you missed the whole jest of my post bwp

I have been silent for long time mostly cause the libs on this board consider me a knucke dragger.... However.. If anyone thinks that Hillary is our next best option, I have to agree with bj in that that the problem with being an ostrich is that you can never see who is sneaking up behind you is not just trying to scare you. They are coming to defile you and take your power away. Hillary is the first sign of the apocalypse. Libs lets keep denying the fact that the muslim world wants us all dead... Holy wars anyone? Does our country and our heritage have any spine left? Or we all just concerned aboout being "politcally correct"? We are in the beginnings of a war with only one outcome... the strong shall persevere... How many of you are?
It is about ideals and beliefs and religion.... I have said it before... this is about religion, not oil, not power, and not nationalism....RELIGION... the root of ALL evil. Religion is the cause of all conflicts dating back to the crusades(the Holy Wars, if you will) Christians vs Muslims thats the way it has been for thousands of years...and it will continue until such a time that a "final solution " is reached...I sincerely hope that that Christianity prevails...That being said.. I do not claim to be a "christian" nor do I claim to be any other religious denomination... however I do have morals and beliefs that may be aligned with the Chistian way of thought, bu I am not a sheep , brought up to believe that Christianity is the only "true faith" much as I don't belive that Islam is the only true faith...I know Aunty will jump all over this post, and thats cool, I welcome her insights and opinions... As well as I welcome anyone else's right to differ.....

Aunty, replace "Iran" with "Saudi Arabia" and the argument is the exact same except we are in bed with that one. Isn't that ironic how close knit the US is to a country who openly oppresses it's people and has government sanctioned religious fanatism?

It's kinda funny how we hate Iran, but are in bed with Pakistan.

Which of the two spread centrifuge and bomb technology all over the ME via the AQ Khan network?

Hint- It wasn't Iran.

The whole situation is mind-boggling. Friends with Saudi Arabia, enemies of Syria. Friends with Pakistan, enemies of Iran. Friends with Iraq, enemies of Iraq. Try making sense of it all.

OR Sudan where you name a teddy bear "Mohammed" and they want to kill you. The irony of the situation is the left pretending their isn't a problem with radical islam.

That was a given. Politicians do share some reality here and there.

BJ,

Where the hell do you get - or make up - the idea that liberals pretend there isn't a problem with radical Islam? Every liberal I know understands that radical religious zealots are a threat, whether they are Muslim, Christian, or anything else. It only makes sense to keep an eye on 'em all, and when they cross the line, send 'em to meet their maker.

Like Salmo, I also think the "liberals" understand the problem with radical Islam. The difference between the sides over here are the tactics in countering it. Many "conservatives" (a really mis-used term these days) see anyone that isn't immediately willing to drop nuclear weapon as "appeasing the terrorists". Liberals tend to see conservatives tactics as fueling radical Islam. The Iraq war is a good example. The support for dictatorships while endlessly talking of democracy is another. The misuse of military power is another. The selective selling of high tech weapons is another. Blindly supporting Israel is another.

We have to stop creating more radicals. Just imagine how Americans would react if foreign troops wandered our country, imposing their form of law. No American would stand for it. Americans would be fighting back however possible - sniping and making homemade explosives.

Luckily, I don't see this as a holy war. I see this as U.S. desire to control oil by having puppet governments and maintaining a strong miliary presence in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia has filled that roll for a long time but that has perhaps reached a breaking point on both sides. That is where Iraq comes into play. Just look at the military bases being contructed and the deal that was just signed by Bush and Maliki this last week. We have no intention of ever leaving.

I'm glad you guys realize that. Sometimes It's hard to tell.

BJ,

If you'd listen to what we say and write instead of making it up in your mind or absorbing it from your right wing whack job radio entertainers, you'd already know it. I have the same values I've always had, but I seem liberal today because so many conservatives and the Republican Party have moved so far over the edge. I'm a fiscal conservative and have always been a social liberal.

Social liberalism is kind of a conservative attribute if you agree with the conservative thought that the government should stay the hell out of people's private business or affairs.

I believe, consistent with the Constitution, that the federal gov't's first responsibility is national defense. Note: that is defense, not offense as in unprovoked invasions of sovereign nations ala Bushco. Somebody attacks the US and the natural, logical, legal, moral, and ethical consequence is to kill 'em. Pretty simple. How's that for liberalism? Defending strategic minerals abroad, like oil for instance, is not Constitutionally defensible. It is, however, defensible for reasons of lifestyle maintenance or greed or avarice or any number of lower human attributes. I don't care; just call a spade a shovel, and stop the sugar-coating; it's intellectually insulting.

I believe that reducing Constitutional protections of citizens is treasonous. Ergo, Buscho and every Congressman and Congresswoman who voted for it is a traitor of the US. I try to keep these things as simple as possible so that even conservatives may understand them.

When conservatives support gov't intervention in people's private lives and reductions in Constitutional protections, I can only conclude that they are stupid beyond belief or are agents of the Devil.

Sg

All a lib in my mind is someone who believes in civil rights and liberties free from tradition, far from religion, one that believes in science that also believes in a system of govt. that controls via modification of social, political & economic situations.

I wouldn't consider myself a hard core conservative right wing nut job you might think I am. I don't get a Limbaugh letter. I don't go to Sean's Freedom concerts. I don't listen to them all the time. I do however enjoy listening to their entertainment as much as I like to watch Scarborough, Blitzer and Couric. I believe in civil rights & liberties. I think pot should be legal. I am against taxes although I pay them faithfully. I believe there is a God. I also believe God has his hands in science from the beginning. However I am not a church goer. I don't believe in "Global Warming", instead I believe in Climate Change. Sounds as If I'm left of center really. I also believe one has the right to bare arms.

When it comes to the president's position, I believe he has the right to defend our country and protect it's interests since we voted for him to do that. That is his #1 responsibility. I also believe in respecting that position no matter what decision he makes whether I am for it or not. We all make bad decisions now and then. If someone else gets elected Pres. that I don't care for, I will still share that same respect for them. Bush wasn't the first president that made bad choices in the minds of many.

Govt. intervention in peoples private lives in the form of taxes is a fact of life. Another fact of life is if you think Bush is having your phone line tapped then you are a nut job. That's crazy business.

amen

BWP,

Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion, but it includes freedom from religion if one so wishes. Freedom of religion means nothing unless it also includes freedom from religion. As Aunty M says, it's the only way to be inclusive of all, and not just some or most, people.

Just like the right of freedom of speech means that the speech you hate is also protected. Otherwise it is a meaningless right.

BJ,

It's nice to hear you say you don't think you're a right wing nut job, but unfortunately many of your posts read like they were written by one, your connecting Saddam with 9/11 in particular.

Sg

AuntyM,
I think that a lot of what happened back then can be contributed to uneducated folks doing what they thought best to even more uneducated people. I hate it when people try to hold people accountable by todays standards for things done a long time ago. While it wasn't right, or even close to right, it does have to be looked at in the perspective of the times. I can't and wouldn't even try to justify what happened back then, it seems unfair of the tribes to look at the US government and point out how unfair they were, without considering what happened to their own enemies when they defeated them.

Blue water,
First let me state that the above statement is in no way meant to take away from the validity of how you feel.
Let me state that coming from an ultraconservative background, I can't understand how Christians can read the bible, look at the Book of Revelations in the Bible and what is stated; and then try to insert religion into government. The way I see it, the main point of Revelations is that the government gives itself over to a world wide religion and attacks those who refuse to worship the beast and his number. Freedom from religion and Freedom of Religion are in reality, the same thing. I can teach my kids what I believe and you should be free to teach yours how you feel. If I want, I can allow someone else to do it, by I most certianly don't what anyone I don't trust to.

I know lots about Ntive americans. I learned everything I know from watching Little Big Man.




Beep LOL!!!!

Historically speaking, $hit happens.

hey bwp
next time yor near a doc? you may want to get a checkup
because i think your clutch is slipping

Geez. Thanks BWP, for telling me what it's like to be a Native. Without you I don't know what the f*ck I'd do with myself.

I suggest now you should head down to Los Angeles to the Watts district to tell Blacks what it's really like to be second class citizens, and if you manage to survive, head to East L.A. and educate the Mexicans on what it's like to be Mexican. It can be your own lil crusade. I'll be the guy selling popcorn on the sidelines of your demise.

LO.....L??????

bwp, speed kills.

speed kills is a factual statement, look up some of the tweaker threads.

[quote=AuntyM]I'm not understanding you BWP. What religion has lost something due to suppression in the US? Government should not be endorsing one faith over another, but they should also not try to "suppress" any religion, as long as it complies with our laws.
[quote]

Remember in Devil's Advocate when that dude killed the goat and they got him off on the "freedom of religion " card. I love Al Pacino!!!

"No thinking person, no person with a brain cares about prejudice. Sorry harsh -but true. When your prejudice you just tell how low class you were brought up & how dumb you are."



Is that all you've brought to this board BWP? Insults?

Now looking at the statement above, Should I consult one of the thousands of academic essays written on Socio-ethnic prejudices and their significance in everyday social interaction to prove you not only an uninformed liar and a blowhard but, guessing by your grammar, a semi-literate sociopath who lashes out through the safety of a computer?

This thread was originally about protesters. That is until YOU brought first religion and then five posts later race into it. No one here said a damn thing about race or religion until you threw on your pointy little hat, climbed up on you soapbox and started ranting about your creationist and racial horsesh*t. You must be a real piece of work in real life.

So far you haven't contributed anything but hate & anger to this board.

My nordic ancestors weren't prejudice. They raped, robbed and pillaged all races equally.

Bushie and his neocons didn't take us into Iraq because Saddam was a bad guy. They used that excuse and either very poor intelligence or out and out lies about WMD (I don't know which) because they wanted to take him out and establish a US presence in the Middle East to protect the flow of oil.

My ancestors weren't prejudiced either; they had sex with everybody. I'm so mixed I check half the boxes when it asks for race/nationality. But mostly I consider myself a lesbian.

VHawk

me too
except i can't stand some family members so i must be a schizophrenic racist